No. 24-5961
James A. Bell v. Michele Dauzat, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 14th-amendment constitutional-violation due-process prosecutorial-misconduct trial-fairness witness-vouching
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2025-01-10
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a prosecutor's 'bolstering' of a witness's testimony constitutes an impermissible vouching exception and violates due process under the 14th Amendment
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. : WHETHER A PROSECUTOR'S "BOLSTERING" OF A WITNESS' TESTIMONY IS A PERMISSIBLE EXCEPTION TO U.S. v. YOUNG's PROHIBITION AGAINST VOUCHING, WHERE THE "BOLSTERING" CONSISTS OF THE PROSECUTOR PERSONALLY ATTESTING TO THE TRUTHFULNESS OF WITNESS! TESTIMONY. WHETHER THE COMMENTS OF THE PROSECUTOR IN THIS CASE SO INFECTED THE TRIAL WITH UNFAIRNESS THAT THE RESULTING CONVICTION VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS -CLAUSE OF THE 14th AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. -ii
Docket Entries
2025-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2024-12-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2025.
2024-12-06
Waiver of right of respondent Michele Dauzat, Warden to respond filed.
2024-10-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 16, 2024)
Attorneys
Michele Dauzat, Warden
Tracy W. Houck — Third Judicial District Attorney's Office, Respondent
Tracy W. Houck — Third Judicial District Attorney's Office, Respondent